Warren Faidley
Supporter
I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, but it seems like it could be an intermediate step between a tornado watch and tornado warning. Sure, some of the public-facing stuff may have to be tweaked, I agree with you about 14% not sounding like much to most people, when to us, that's quite high, but that's like SPC's "slight" risk. Maybe instead of numbers, It could be like a small watch. I tend to think of tornado watches as being region-sized, while warnings are county-sized. So have a "Tornado Advisory" that covers a few counties maybe?I have not used this forecast guidance site but "Warn on Forecast" is a solution in search of a problem. The idea is to give probabilistic tornado and other storm warnings which, if implemented, will be a huge step backward for the storm warning system.
This is a situation where what sounds good to career scientists doesn't work in the real world. Because tornado warnings are so rare it will be impossible to educate the public that a 14% chance of a tornado is actually very high. Yes, I know some social scientists have endorsed it but those have not been experiments during real-time tornado conditions.
The existing tornado warning system is having real problems. Fixing it is where the effort should be going.
The idea of WoFS is not to replace the system of tornado/severe tstm/hazardous wx watches and warnings. The idea is to bridge the gap in the 3-6 hr period in between watch and warning where a hole currently exists.I have not used this forecast guidance site but "Warn on Forecast" is a solution in search of a problem. The idea is to give probabilistic tornado and other storm warnings which, if implemented, will be a huge step backward for the storm warning system.
This is a situation where what sounds good to career scientists doesn't work in the real world. Because tornado warnings are so rare it will be impossible to educate the public that a 14% chance of a tornado is actually very high. Yes, I know some social scientists have endorsed it but those have not been experiments during real-time tornado conditions.
The existing tornado warning system is having real problems. Fixing it is where the effort should be going.
Since nearly every reply so far suggests ignorance of the underlying science, I'll start by presenting the seminal paper on this program, from back in 2009:
Andy:
The idea of WoFS is not to replace the system of tornado/severe tstm/hazardous wx watches and warnings. The idea is to bridge the gap in the 3-6 hr period in between watch and warning where a hole currently exists.
Jeff: I am not unaware of the underlying science. In fact, I have been following since Dr. John Snow told us in Norman in Dec. 2012, that WoF would be a reality in "five years." I participated in one of the test beds.
Everyone: Above stipulated, I understand why some may be confused by my comment. I'm working on an article that will be published next month that, based on my nearly complete research, indicates some very troubling trends.
I have not used this forecast guidance site but "Warn on Forecast" is a solution in search of a problem.
The existing tornado warning system is having real problems. Fixing it is where the effort should be going.